"Neutrality" is this disregard for irrelevant considerations....Two subcases of neutrality are...cause neutrality [and] means neutrality.
"Neutrality" is this disregard for irrelevant considerations.
Two subcases of neutrality are...cause neutrality [and] means neutrality.
There are also other considerations which one should, or arguably should, be neutral about. One example is what resources to use - e.g. money or time. Another is whether to pursue high or low risk interventions: many effective altruists believe that you should be risk neutral and simply maximise expected value.
Still others may include neutrality with respect to how diversified your altruistic investments should be (meaning you shouldn't, e.g. be biased in favour of splitting your donations), and neutrality with respect to a charity's level of overhead (the opposite of overhead bias). Again, the idea would be that one should simply look at what maximises impact and not assign any intrinsic value to, e.g. a low overhead.
One option would be to have a more general article on neutrality. The article on cause-neutrality could be on a level below in the hierarchy. Another option would be to briefly mention the other aspects of neutrality I mentioned here in this article. But it's also possible to retain the current approach - I'm unsure how important the more general neutrality concept is.
Okay, I've revised the lead section of the entry, created a separate entry on means neutrality, and added a disambiguation page on neutrality. In the future, we may want to add an entry on resource neutrality and perhaps other types of neutrality.
Yes, good points. I'll take a look shortly.